[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Now, my question is, if someone can actually focus on what I just wrote above and respond to it without the personal attacks on at least some level that isn’t juvenile.[/quote]
Ha! I don’t know how you do it. Impressive… [/quote]
Glad I’m not the only one that thought so.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I have a question for you X.
You’ve stated that the natural bodybuilding population is a poor sample of the actual population because it’s faulty to assume that the best genetically gifted bodybuilders would even decide to stay natural in the first place. [/quote]
first, that is NOT my stance. It is not that they would just not choose to stay natural. They would not choose to compete in natural bodybuilding over more lucrative and high profile fields like FOOTBALL.
[quote]
Assuming that is true, and assuming it’s true that you’ve packed on more than this 80 lbs of muscle we’re discussing, aren’t you basically saying that you have better muscle building capabilities than the best natural bodybuilders in the world? [/quote]
First, not one natural bodybuilding comp is won on sheer mass. this also excludes all of those guys with wide hips and larger bone structure who might be bigger but aren’t shaped well enough to win. That means it doesn’t matter if I gained more muscle than some guy who competes. That isn’t what wins natural bodybuilding comps.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Now, my question is, if someone can actually focus on what I just wrote above and respond to it without the personal attacks on at least some level that isn’t juvenile.[/quote]
Ha! I don’t know how you do it. Impressive… [/quote]
I’m confused…I asked you to respond to what I actually wrote. You didn’t. You chose to focus on me again instead.
These posts are all messed up lol
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I have a question for you X.
You’ve stated that the natural bodybuilding population is a poor sample of the actual population because it’s faulty to assume that the best genetically gifted bodybuilders would even decide to stay natural in the first place. [/quote]
first, that is NOT my stance. It is not that they would just not choose to stay natural. They would not choose to compete in natural bodybuilding over more lucrative and high profile fields like FOOTBALL.[/quote]
So the natural bodybuilding population is not representative of the most genetically gifted for bodybuilding. That is your stance?
[quote]
[quote]
Assuming that is true, and assuming it’s true that you’ve packed on more than this 80 lbs of muscle we’re discussing, aren’t you basically saying that you have better muscle building capabilities than the best natural bodybuilders in the world? [/quote]
First, not one natural bodybuilding comp is won on sheer mass. this also excludes all of those guys with wide hips and larger bone structure who might be bigger but aren’t shaped well enough to win. That means it doesn’t matter if I gained more muscle than some guy who competes. That isn’t what wins natural bodybuilding comps.[/quote]
You’re skirting around the question. I didn’t ask if you would win the bodybuilding competition, I asked if you thought you had greater muscle building genetics than those competitors, because you have seemingly broke a barrier that they were not able to break.
^^Rule #1
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I doubt most humans will gain 150lbs of muscle naturally.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOL!
ya think?[/quote]
How can you know for sure that no human being can teleport themselves… we havent sampled the whole planet and even if we did maybe someone would just “fake” not being able to
Genetics are powerfull[/quote]
So now that you, Z, made a big hullaballoo about how we all need to put X on ignore, are you just waiting around for someone to quote him so that you can respond?
[/quote]
Thank you.
I was wondering when someone else would point out that the guy who made a thread about ignoring me can’t stop responding to what I write…and most of those responses being nothing but insults.
I’ve taken genetics classes. I don’t go around saying I have an ‘education in genetics’ because it is disingenuous to geneticists.
I don’t think some part-time involvement in a study would change that, either.
I just find that whole comment ridiculous. According to you have I have an education in biomechanics, organic chemistry, neuroscience, and so on…
[quote]lankymofo wrote:So the natural bodybuilding population is not representative of the most genetically gifted for bodybuilding. That is your stance?
[/quote]
? It may be a contest of the “genetically most aesthetic”, but at no time has a natural bodybuilding comp been about the guy who can literally just build the most muscle.
Clear enough for you?
No one skirted around anything. Once again, it doesn’t matter if I can gain more muscle than some guy who won because it isn’t just about SIZE.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I’ve taken genetics classes. I don’t go around saying I have an ‘education in genetics’ because it is disingenuous to geneticists.
I don’t think some part-time involvement in a study would change that, either.
I just find that whole comment ridiculous. According to you have I have an education in biomechanics, organic chemistry, neuroscience, and so on…
[/quote]
? You don’t think actually separating dna in electrophoresis gel and actually growing the bacteria used means you have a good understanding of the subject matter?
LOL. Look, it’s good if you don’t think what you did matters. I know what I did does matter…so I mentioned it.
for the record I took 300 and 400 level genetics in undergrad, as well as did epidemiological research, which is much more relevant to the topic than the bench work you did in genetics. Regardless, for the scope of this topic no one needs anything beyond a cursory knowledge of genetics and population data.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Just to make this point clear, in science and medicine, when discussing topics like this, especially as it refers to large populations, you come up with a RANGE of observable data. I would be very skeptical of the political or emotional motives of any “scientist” who literally comes out with an exact number that somehow relates to all people unless it is a very extreme number and we are talking about absolutes.
Simply put, this “80lbs limit” is unsupported and contested…so why keep retelling it?
[/quote]
lol, well before they come up with a range, there are rounds of research and educated guessing that leads to a hypothesis. I really do value guys like brick, maiden, stu, etc weighing in on this as they have already, and I’ve already qualified why this guessing of a “natural limit” of sorts is important to all of us as well and is central to the topic at hand. You’ve already noted that this isn’t a worthwhile question to ask, so please you and your trolls bow out.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I doubt most humans will gain 150lbs of muscle naturally.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOL!
ya think?[/quote]
How can you know for sure that no human being can teleport themselves… we havent sampled the whole planet and even if we did maybe someone would just “fake” not being able to
Genetics are powerfull[/quote]
So now that you, Z, made a big hullaballoo about how we all need to put X on ignore, are you just waiting around for someone to quote him so that you can respond?
[/quote]
Engaging Prof X is like crack rock. You never really can quit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Now, my question is, if someone can actually focus on what I just wrote above and respond to it without the personal attacks on at least some level that isn’t juvenile.[/quote]
Ha! I don’t know how you do it. Impressive… [/quote]
Glad I’m not the only one that thought so.[/quote]
What’s up with the posts in this thread? They keep appearing and disappearing?
[quote]gregron wrote:
What’s up with the posts in this thread? They keep appearing and disappearing?[/quote]
whole forum is screwy right now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Assuming that is true, and assuming it’s true that you’ve packed on more than this 80 lbs of muscle we’re discussing, aren’t you basically saying that you have better muscle building capabilities than the best natural bodybuilders in the world? [/quote]
First, not one natural bodybuilding comp is won on sheer mass. this also excludes all of those guys with wide hips and larger bone structure who might be bigger but aren’t shaped well enough to win. That means it doesn’t matter if I gained more muscle than some guy who competes. That isn’t what wins natural bodybuilding comps.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one skirted around anything. Once again, it doesn’t matter if I can gain more muscle than some guy who won because it isn’t just about SIZE.[/quote]
Lanky,
This is him answering your question with a YES without actually answering your question.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
What’s up with the posts in this thread? They keep appearing and disappearing?[/quote]
whole forum is screwy right now.[/quote]
Ok cool. Glad it’s not me.
They’re probably updating software or something like that.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
gregron whats up with your new avi?
[/quote]
It’s a tribute to a former member of the site.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]lankymofo wrote:So the natural bodybuilding population is not representative of the most genetically gifted for bodybuilding. That is your stance?
[/quote]
? It may be a contest of the “genetically most aesthetic”, but at no time has a natural bodybuilding comp been about the guy who can literally just build the most muscle.
Clear enough for you?
[/quote]
I never said it was. Size is part of the equation.
[quote]
No one skirted around anything. Once again, it doesn’t matter if I can gain more muscle than some guy who won because it isn’t just about SIZE.[/quote]
Oh look, you’ve skirted it again.
Guy, we both know the reason you won’t just simply answer this question.
If you answer that you do not have better muscle building genetics than the best natural bodybuilders in the world (I’m talking muscle building genetics, not aesthetically speaking), it would prove that you have not, as claimed, broken some 80 pounds of muscle added limit that we’re discussing.
If you answer that you do indeed have better muscle building genetics than the best natural bodybuilders, it makes you look absurd.
(I know natural bodybuilding competitions are not sheer size, and I also know you’re still going to assert that I don’t realize that)
[quote]Lankymofo wrote:I never said it was. Size is part of the equation.
[/quote]
? But since the bigger guy can also LOSE it makes looking at the winners NOT directly equal to the biggest competitors.
[quote]Oh look, you’ve skirted it again.
Guy, we both know the reason you won’t just simply answer this question.
If you answer that you do not have better muscle building genetics than the best natural bodybuilders in the world (I’m talking muscle building genetics, not aesthetically speaking), it would prove that you have not, as claimed, broken some 80 pounds of muscle added limit that we’re discussing.
If you answer that you do indeed have better muscle building genetics than the best natural bodybuilders, it makes you look absurd.
(I know natural bodybuilding competitions are not sheer size, and I also know you’re still going to assert that I don’t realize that)[/quote]
?? The issue is whether someone can gain more muscle, not win more bodybuilding contests. I cold have more muscle than anyone else here and still lose a bodybuilding contest…so what is your point?
I don’t know how much overall muscle all competitors have gained…and none of you do either. That means I can not respond to whether I gained more muscle than some who won a contest.